Saturday, 11 June 2016

Conversion to the Diversity Ideology

Part 2 - Justification of Hypotheses

In a previous blog [1] I outlined a system dynamics model of how
Christianity is losing ground to a new movement in society, which I nicknamed
the “Diversity Ideology”. I chose this name because people in the movement
affirm a wide diversity of individual practices and lifestyles, especially in
the area of sexual behaviour, where its most public manifestation is felt.

Christianity and the Diversity ideology are competing for
the public space – the media, public bodies, private organisations and
companies etc. As church declines, it has less influence in this public space,
thus leaving areas open to new ideas, the neutral space, figure 1. Thus a new
ideology has more opportunity to influence these public bodies. Diversity is
doing this through activists that champion the notions of equality, diversity,
tolerance and inclusion; through the various LGBT+ agencies and through
humanist and atheistic groups. Though not necessarily anti-Christian, it is
opposed to the “Christianity of the past”. Thus the more liberal Christian
groups can be found in its midst, as well as atheists looking to discredit all
religion, especially the “established” one in the West.

The model is only at the dynamical hypothesis stage, and
still needs further assumptions for a full implementation. Before doing this I
would like to provide evidence to support the hypotheses. Specifically I will provide
examples where public bodies, or individuals in the public space, display their
conversion to the Diversity ideology.

Ideological Change

When people change their ideology they do at least four
things:

A. Rewrite history to fit the new ideology. I dealt
with this in a previous blog [2]

B. Public confession of past failures. Either
themselves, or those they no longer identify with.

C. Adoption of badges of new identity. It may be just
for a moment, like baptism, or permanent, like a dress code.

D. Demonisation of those who have not changed. They
split the population in to the enlightened (the new ideology) and the
unenlightened (the ones they used to belong to).

I am not saying any of these are wrong. Christianity has all
four in varying degrees, just read Paul the apostle’s account of his
conversion! My point is that these are true of conversion to all
ideologies, including humanist ones. Also they are true of organisational
conversion, not just individual.

Ideological Change of
Public Bodies

Many countries have already indicated their conversion to
the Diversity ideology either by passing legislation on same-sex marriage, or
in President Obama’s case lighting up the White House in rainbow colours.
However the state government of Victoria in Australia went much further when
premier Daniel Andrews issued a long public apology for the past laws that
criminalised homosexual behaviour [3].

He apologised for specific events in 1937, 1967 and 1976,
indicating the State’s conversion (B) from the morals of the past to those of
Diversity. He further re-wrote history (A) by saying: “It is easy for us to
condemn their bigotry. But the law required them to be bigoted.” I suspect the
people of the past were just as opposed to bigotry as people are now, what has
changed is the ideological and moral framework by which bigotry is measured.

There was less evidence of a badge of identity (C) in this
speech but the statement: “Here in Victoria equality is not negotiable” comes
close. The identifier “equality” is used, but in the restricted sense of the
Diversity ideology as, presumably equality of things such as income and housing
is not included. Finally the demonization of the unenlightened (D) is seen such
phrases as: “Tomorrow, a trans woman will be turned away from a job interview”,
and him indicating: “there is still much to do”.

The rights and wrongs of what he said are not relevant here.
This is an example of an advocate of the Diversity ideology using his position
to influence the public space with the conversion experience of a government.
This in turn influences the number of people who align themselves with
the new ideology, loop Rd2 in figure
2, and increases the amount of public space with the new ideological
sympathies, loop Bd3, figure2 (and
1).

Figure 2: Causal Loop Diagram of the Diversity Ideology Sector

Ideological Change of
Influential Individuals

There have been two recent cases in the UK where individual
politicians have had to publically express their conversion experience to
Diversity. From 2014 onwards education secretary, Nicky Morgan has been
confessing (B) her mistake in voting against same-sex marriage in 2013 [4]. She
has spoken at the Pink News awards in the House of Commons and at Stonewall as
her “badge” of identification (C) [5]. She sort of rewrote history when she
claimed she voted against the legislation because of the pressure from
constituents (A). When she indicated some people (like her) were slow to take
up these things she (gently) put down the unenlightened (D).

Likewise Liberal Democrat leader Tim Farron had to undergo
something of a public climb-down when he became leader of a party closely
identified with Diversity [6]. Both Farron and Morgan are committed Christians
[7] and their public identification with Diversity, over their Christian
beliefs, weakens Christianity in the public space, loop Bc3, figure 1, while strengthening Diversity’s public profile loop Bd3.

Of course anyone with the slightest bit of compassion would
feel really sorry for them for what they had to go through to stay in public
life. Public confessions are humiliating, and in the past churches have also
been responsible for inflicting these on others, usually on Christians who
differ from them. Sadly compassion is not a strong feature of an ideology at
the zealot stage.

Ideological Change
within Churches

The ideological competition between Christianity and
Diversity occurs within the Christian church itself. At first glance this seems
confusing as it is all called “Christian”. For the purposes of the model the
word “Christian” means that part of the church that believes what it has
received from the past is fixed and cannot be changed. This is usually divine
revelation – the Bible – as in the Evangelical case. But for some it may mean
traditions set centuries ago which are not to be changed, e.g. the
Anglo-Catholic view of male-only priesthood.

On the other hand the part of the church aligned to the
Diversity ideology is the more liberal part, though that includes some
Evangelicals who are liberalising.The key difference is that like in humanism, beliefs are determined by
people, not by a fixed cannon.

The Church in Wales is an Anglican church, and like many UK
denominations, is indicating decline to extinction [8]. Last year the attempts by its leadership
to introduced same-sex marriage were stalled by significant opposition from
diocesan representatives. Since then the bishops of the church have issued a
pastoral statement that indicates the Church’s conversion to Diversity in the
public sphere [9].

Notably there was the display of the rainbow flag as the
identification badge (C). The
unenlightened laggards within the church are subtly discredited with statements
like“the Church is not yet
ready to accept same-sex marriage” (D). There is a general confession of,
and apology for, past damage the church has done to gay people (B). Though the
actual offences, and the people involved, are not identified, leaving the
reader to re-write history for themselves in order to make sense of the
statement (A).

Though the Bishops said they could not proceed with same-sex
blessings, they nevertheless produced prayers to be used at same-sex
celebrations that omitted the word “bless”. They could take this decision on
their own authority without need for corporate ratification. This shows how the
influence of the public space by the Diversity ideology is top down, not bottom-up.
That is, it is activists working within the controlling elite, or the leaders
themselves, shifting the public space away from Christianity towards Diversity,
loop Rd2, figure 2.

By contrast religions like Christianity, renewal movements
and revivals are bottom up. That is enthusiasts within the church convert
individuals through person-to-person contact, loop Rc1, figure 1. These movements have less patronage by their elites,
and thus less growth through activism in the public space, loop Rc2. The influence on the public space
is more long-term, which of course has been the position of Christianity in the
West for some time.

Figure 3: Causal Loop Diagram of Church & Christianity

A similar top-down conversion in the public space occurred
yesterday when the Scottish Episcopal Church voted to adopt same-sex marriage,
with the final decision to be made in 2017 [10]. This strategy has been ongoing
for some years, and it shows how with a long drawn-out conversion, an organisation
can increase its ideological influence on the public.

The numerical future of the Church in Wales and the Scottish
Episcopal church is bleak [8], with or without same-sex marriage. But the
public conversions of both bodies as organisations (not individuals!) to the
Diversity ideology shows how even small organisations can have a big influence
on the public space, provided they back the growing side. Had either church issued
negative statements with regard to LGBT+ issues it is doubtful they would have
been reported. Diversity has easier access to the public space than
conservative Christianity; loop Rd2
is stronger than Rc2, figures 2 and
3.

Conclusion

Hopefully these examples are enough to show how the feedback
loops in the causal loop diagrams relate to ideological conversion in the
public space. It does mean for conservative Christians the public space is now a
very uncomfortable place. A Christian who publically speaks what they believe
will feel a bit like the North Korean who stops clapping first in a party meeting
with Kim Jong-un! All eyes are on them – they are an embarrassment as they are
not politically correct. If not repentant they can quickly face the wrath of
the Diversity champions, who will exclude anyone that challenges their
inclusive ideology.

But as I said before these situations often display the
Christian church at its best. It forces believers to seek conversions within
their network, under the radar of the public space, loop Rc1, figure 3, relying on the Holy Spirit rather than popularity. Indeed
however unpleasant public ridicule, it can help weaken the internal institutionalism
that has stifled Christianity for so long (loop Bc2), as true believers seek like-minded Christians for comfort,
rather than their institutionalised and often compromised denominations.

Of course as Christians we are in good company as it was in
the public space that the political and religious elite tried to catch Jesus
out. They never did, and I really wish I could come up with the responses He
did! But He did promise the Holy Spirit would help us speak. And of course we
know what they did to Him! And He never said we would not suffer for our faith.

I will return to this model in due course and attempt to
turn it into a simulation.